FISH

When I first saw this chart a few years ago I was surprised. UK had 2nd largest catch? We'd grown massively?

Today HMG spends time on FISH, ignoring other priorities. And worse they seem to be getting the industry a worse outcome!

I need help, have I missed something?

Do you know something about Fish?

Do you understand how our EU negotiation stance with Fish makes sense?

Do you understand how it benefits fishing communities?

If so can you tell me what I've missed.

Because we seem to be about to screw over the industry we promised to save?

1
Parts of #nodealbrexit are "disputed".
HMG seems convinced it's good for #FISH.

Really? How?

This isn't partisan; it's genuine enquiry to anyone regardless of your stance on #Brexit to help me understand

Unbiased facts (open to challenge) with sources & questions

Thanks

2. Custom
1. ~65% of fish and 75% of shellfish are exported to the EU
2. 5-10% is exported further afield but that market is not expandable - air freight, speed, ice are profit killers for fresh, so about 90% is smoked salmon or similar.
3. The rest is domestic.

3 Custom (cont).
4. UK is both a significant importer and exporter of fish to the EU, due to consumer taste.
Simple version - we don't like to eat what we catch.
5. Multiple attempts to change UK preferences have failed, our share of local fish eaten continues to decrease

4 Custom
6. UK produces wonderful Herring, Mackerel, Sardines, Oysters and Scallops. And eats few to none of them.

7. That's why UK specialised. The type of fish are fixed. So we specialised in catching them to sell to a market where the profits exist - exporting to the EU.

5 CFP
1. UK could expand its fish volumes with nodeal & some EU states would suffer.
2. Most impacted are the Dutch. France and Spain impact is not zero but exaggerated.
3. The list of caveats here is very long. Some examples.
3.i UK fleet will need years to expand to new areas

6 CFP cont
3.ii UK fleet like other states is specialised, so it also won't be able fully to fish the areas it controls today
3.iii UK has grown its share of fish in the EU from 5th largest in 70s to 2nd largest haul by 2014. No one seems to comment on this point.

7 CFP cont
3iv CFP decides a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) governed in principle by Sustainability.
3v The catch is divided up based on traditional fishing share.
3vi UK has been uniquely successful in exploiting specialism to increase share fishing what others couldn't.

8 CFP cont
3vii Specialisation has only been possible due to large corporate consolidation in the UK. Non corporate fishing is ~ 10% all in areas inefficient for corporates (eg. shell fish)
3 viii this means traditional fishing industry will be most hurt by any No Deal.

9 CFP cont
4. Compliance is a problem. In some ports 30-50% fish are illegal, on average 20%

Some are relatively worse, but UK isn't great and with second largest fleet, it actually is joint first offender.

Or we could say everyone has problems and stop demonising the French?

5. Sustainability
5i. One reason CFP is controversial is because it sets quotas on sustainability BUT has a poor succeess record
5ii. But is that CFP or unrealistic politics?

10
5iii CFP and TAC enabled efficiency of fishing in smaller volimes
5iv CFP had to manage enormous historical change.
eg. UK benefs from EU share growth, but industry compares to pre EU.
pre EU is a fiction. UK catch rates declined 94% over 118 years due to overfishing not EU.

11 Profits and tariffs.
Hard to find reliable data on this, so I linked the one report I found. It looks plausible vs other industries.

UK Fishing average net profit Margin ~ 16%

No Deal EU Tariffs on fish 8-15%

12
Comments & Questions
Dear reader did you know this already? How did you react?

My notes
1. Is Fish the most lied about area of all?
2. Is it the most intertwined relationship
3. What'd be more unhelpful that Farage or Johnson jumping in with lies, but no plans ?

12 Dilemma Mutually Assured Destruction.

I'll try to be objective.
It looks like
1. EU is THE demand market
2. UK could fish more under No Deal
3. But it would take years to build
4. And it would have to fund that based on profits wiped out
5. Since it has no other customers

13
6. Plus it's already specialised to fish in its waters and the most profit efficient market it can supply.
7. Any additional fishing will actually be LESS efficient by definition
8. Especially with tarrifs!

So dear reader.
WTF are we doing?

14. Close

HNG claims Fish is one of two reasons we may choose No Deal.

As a % of our economy that's already a difficult idea.

But you'd expect then for it to be good for fishing.

But no Deal is also a disaster for fishing.

Dear reader, Can you help me see what I missed?

Sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy
https://www.tasteatlas.com/most-popular-shellfish-in-united-kingdom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_fish
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/5-external-trade_en
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/96ebfb1a-3ea6-11ea-a01a-bae547046735
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/513962/IPOL-PECH_NT(2013)513962_EN.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi3np2k4I7sAhWfQhUIHdRFAtYQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3iKScty40PoQdf5oU2GOoc&cshid=1601395820327
https://iuuriskintelligence.com/who-is-to-blame-for-excess-fisheries-quotas-in-eu-member-states/